Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-andreasen-sipping-rfc3603bis-07.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:42:39 +0100

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. 

Document: draft-andreasen-sipping-rfc3603bis-07.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2008-12-24
IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-10
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Comments: some minor editorial concerns (i.e, to be fixed bt the RFC Editor):

 - Abstract page 2: please remove (SIP) [RFC3261] (the Abstract is an
  autonomous text, the abbrev is not used so is useless, etc)

 - ToC page 3: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 5: this is the right place to introduce the SIP abbrev,
  i.e., SIP -> Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261]

 - 2 page 6: the DCS abbrev is never introduced

 - 5 page 10: the UAC abbrev is not introduced, IMHO you should find
  a way to introduce UAC and UAS abbrevs in 3 (Trust Boundary).

 - 5.1 page 11: .The trace-param -> . The trace-param

 - 8 page 25: ccc-id -> cccid (for uniformity)

 - 8.3 page 28: The UAC may also include a P-DCS-Redirect header.
  -> The UAC MAY also include a P-DCS-Redirect header.
  (IMHO according to the context this should be the uppercase keyword)

 - 8.5 page 28: .Otherwise, -> . Otherwise,

 - 12 page 37: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 12 page 37: Tung- Hai -> Tung-Hai ?

 - 13.2 page 38: please use the long names for months (first 4 entries)

Don't forget you have expert review and IANA comments in the ID tracker.

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: I don't comment about the lawful interception stuff.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art